Vote for Sustrans?

[wafflycat]

Is it though?

As someone said above, the entire 'anti' argument appears to be "I cycle on the road, I don't like Sustrans, therefore it shouldn't exist".

Then I suggest you re-read, because that's *not* why Sustrans is disliked. Several reasons have been given and not as you have stated.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

Not at all. I'd much rather that the emphasis was put on a combination of educating motorists to understand that cyclists are a legitimate road users and that they have a legitimate place on the roads combined with facilitating cycle training for those that want it so there is more opportunity for cyclists to develop the skills to cycle assertively and as safely as possible on road, minimising the current mindset that cycling on road is 'dangerous' which, for the most part, it's not.

So, it should be covered more in Driving Theory tests etc? Maybe someone should start an official petition to the DVLA?

And you're right, cycling on the road is generally perfectly safe, if you're confident enough to be there. But no one can explain how for a cyclist that isn't particularly confident, riding on the road with traffic travelling 60mph+ is apparantly better/safer than a cycle free route?

Sustrans in itself won't promote a huge amount of road based cycling, true. But not everyone wants to be a roadie and promoting cycling in any form cannot be bad.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

Then I suggest you re-read, because that's *not* why Sustrans is disliked. Several reasons have been given and not as you have stated.

But unless I've missed something, the reasons have basically been "I feel safe cycling on the road, I prefer to cycle on the road, I think we should promote road cycling, I believe that Sustrans goes against this, therefore traffic free routes are bad."

 

[wafflycat]

Sustrans in itself won't promote a huge amount of road based cycling, true. But not everyone wants to be a roadie and promoting cycling in any form cannot be bad.

But it is bad when it promotes 'safe' to equal 'traffic-free' thus keeping alive the myth that the roads are too dangerous to cycle on. Sustrans (read John Grimshaw) gets a *lot* of publicity, and the emphasis of that publicity isn't that cyclists are legitimate road users, but is that 'safe' = 'traffic-free' and that is plain wrong. Again - I point out the links I've given elsewhere on this thread about the real level of safety of separate farcilities. The reality is that they are more dangerous than cycling on road. The reality is the more cyclists there are on road, the safer it becomes for all.

 

[marinyork]

I too loathe sustrans, the one flattering thing I can think of saying about them is that plenty of other things waste vaste amounts of money but at least this is in the name of cycling.

To be fair on connect2 there are 2 schemes near me, a reserve scheme near sheffied city centre which would be highly beneficial to me. There is a need, unfortunately the problem arises in the first place because Sheffield City Council are forever tearing up sheffield and introducing new one way systems, blocks, the tram etc and bikes have been left out completely. The scheme is dumb though because in the real world if you were that bothered you could illegally hop over the tram bridge and I can't really condemn this as it's not just cyclists that do it but city of sheffield workers and tram related people taking a shortcut home or lard-arsed layabouts who can't be bothered to park somewhere half sane and walk. In the real world either party that doesn't feel that strongly about it does that.

The other scheme that is on the list of 79 is nearby but I'm not sure whether everything on the map is new certainly some of it is existing cycle network. If it is then it'd be reasonably impressive as it deals with real problems like crossing the M1 and converting a footpath into a cycle path. The scheme highlighted in red would be the only crossing between 2 main roads 2 miles apart of a canal and a railway line so there certainly is a case for the scheme but I think to be honest the Sheffield City centre one would be more useful to more people.

 

[wafflycat]

But unless I've missed something, the reasons have basically been "I feel safe cycling on the road, I prefer to cycle on the road, I think we should promote road cycling, I believe that Sustrans goes against this, therefore traffic free routes are bad."

The reality is you are safer on road: see earlier references to research. The idea that off-road is safer is a myth. It sends out a false message.

Read again what I've said about motorist education and cycle training.

Read again about the underlying messages of the white painted outline bike on footpaths (these do not a satisfactory farcility make).

It's got little to do with 'I feel safer on road' and everything to do with what the reality is and which is ignored by the *false* message of 'safe' equating to 'traffic-free'

 

[Brock]

Presumably anti NCN people would like to close all traffic free cycling routes, and force the pootlers and weekend family outings on to the real roads which will increase our numbers and thus decrease the abuse and ignorance of drivers?

 

[Brock]

The reality is you are safer on road: see earlier references to research. The idea that off-road is safer is a myth. It sends out a false message.

Read again what I've said about motorist education and cycle training.

Read again about the underlying messages of the white painted outline bike on footpaths (these do not a satisfactory farcility make).

It's got little to do with 'I feel safer on road' and everything to do with what the reality is and which is ignored by the *false* message of 'safe' equating to 'traffic-free'

Motorist education: Agreed.
'Underlying messages' of white painted cycle signs: No such thing.
Safe=Traffic Free: Not exclusively, but Traffic Free certainly=safe.

You seem overly obsessed by everyone misconstruing rules of the road and paranoia about subliminal messages Waffly.

 

[wafflycat]

Presumably anti NCN people would like to close all traffic free cycling routes, and force the pootlers and weekend family outings on to the real roads which will increase our numbers and thus decrease the abuse and ignorance of drivers?

Combine with more motorist education on the fact that cyclists are legitimate road users and with more opportunities for cyclists to obtain training on how to cycle assertively (not aggressively) and safely and you may be on to something... as it would help decrease the false belief that traffic-free equates to 'safe' and the clear inference that cyclists have no place on roads (otherwise why do they require special facilities provided at great cost?)

 

[wafflycat]

Motorist education: Agreed.
'Underlying messages' of white painted cycle signs: No such thing.
Safe=Traffic Free: Not exclusively, but Traffic Free certainly=safe.

You seem overly obsessed by everyone misconstruing rules of the road and paranoia about subliminal messages Waffly.

"'Underlying messages' of white painted cycle signs: No such thing." Oh but there is - otherwise why are special facilities needed?

"Safe=Traffic Free: Not exclusively, but Traffic Free certainly=safe." But you are wrong - read the researach. Traffic-free does not equate to safe.

No paranoia at all, Brock, just looking at the thing in a more detailed way than the simplistic and plain wrong Sustrans view that traffic-free = safe

 

[Brock]

We require the paths and trails through scenic woodlands and along rivers because they're pleasant, increase people's quality of life and give nervous new cyclists somewhere to gain the skills needed to encourage them out of their cars during the week. Well worth the money needed clear the brambles off a disused rail cutting if you ask me.

 

[Brock]

So you're trying to tell me Waffly, if all the motorised traffic was removed from my daily commute, it would be less safe?

 

[wafflycat]

So you're trying to tell me Waffly, if all the motorised traffic was removed from my daily commute, it would be less safe?

What I'm saying, Brock, is that I suggest you read the research given via the links already posted about the real world data.

 

[marinyork]

Sustrans routes are far from traffic free anyway. Vast stretches of onroad stuff that aren't any more safe than other stretches of normal road just some idiot believes that putting a blue sign up makes them more safe.

 

[Brock]

What I'm saying, Brock, is that I suggest you read the research given via the links already posted about the real world data.

Sigh, ok, I may be some time, there was an awful lot of it, But if it's just going to tell me that cycle paths squeezed onto pavements and crossing side roads, leaving and merging with traffic flow etc are dangerous, then I know that already.